[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dafydd]

It is not just that Jabba considers us not neutral, which by itself is not undesirable and is the basic nature if every human. After all, Jabba has repeatedly admitted, albeit indirectly in other threads, that he too is not neutral in that he wants the Shroud to be real and he wants to be immortal.

No. Jabba's real point is that we, and by extension all scientists, statisticians, and skeptics who agree with us are incapable of controlling for that non-neutrality to the point that we will either sub-consciously twist the truth or blatantly lie. All while Jabba himself, as "the better man," not only can but does overcome his biases to present objective truth.

To be clear, I am not posting tongue-in-cheek in the slightest. This is how Jabba sees it. We are trapped by our bias; he is not.

I think that he is just amusing himself. Even a non-mathematician like me has got the point about p by now.

 

[abaddon]

I think you'll find that the majority here are entirely neutral, in the sense that they will accept what the evidence shows to be true. If, however, you're defining "neutral" as "are 50/50 on the question of whether or not I'm right", then you'd be right. But also abusing the term "neutral".

I'm entirely neutral, as if you can show me that you're right - hopefully with evidence or proof, but maybe even with good rhetoric - then I will accept that you're right. I am entirely open to changing my mind. I fully admit the possibility that you may be right and that my current viewpoint is wrong. That I disagree with you isn't an indicator of my being biased, it's an indicator that you have not, as yet, posted any even vaguely convincing arguments.

Look at it this way. Let's say that we're not talking about immortality, but something else. Say there's a bag and in that bag are 100,000 balls, all identical except for the fact that 999,999 of them are black and 1 of them is white. They've all been mixed up thoroughly. You say that you will reach in to the bag and, without looking, you will draw out the white ball on your first try.

I will believe that you won't. I will happily tell you that you won't, and I will explain to you where I believe your reasoning is wrong. But I will also admit the possibility that you might. And I won't believe you until you do.

I'm not biased against the idea of you drawing out the white ball. I'm neutral on the issue. But I also know what the probabilities are - what the facts are - and I'm basing my opinion on that.

Not an unreasonable definition of neutrality, in fact quite a good one IMHO.

But it fails in one pertinent respect. Jabba will dismiss it out of hand as a biased view for no reason other that he does not like it. But he won't tell you why right now. He has to go find his research on that. But he will surely be back to you some day soon. I promise.

 

[Garrette]

I think that he is just amusing himself. Even a non-mathematician like me has got the point about p by now.

I disagree, though without real evidence.

I have met people in real life who behave exactly the same way, and Jabba strikes me just like them.

Your arguments are rock solid? That's because you won't look at the big picture. You find flaws in my arguments? That's because you're stuck on semantics instead of the concept.

 

[dafydd]

I disagree, though without real evidence.

I have met people in real life who behave exactly the same way, and Jabba strikes me just like them.

Your arguments are rock solid? That's because you won't look at the big picture. You find flaws in my arguments? That's because you're stuck on semantics instead of the concept.

Is maths semantic? If that is a stupid question then my excuse is that I never went to university.

 

[Loss Leader]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

What about me? You chose me personally. I didn't suggest myself as your lab partner, you did. Am I too partisan to honestly evaluate your ideas?

If so, I find it deeply insulting that you asked to have a one-on-one conversation with me at all. I would never have agreed to such a thing had I known that you intended to disregard my comments from the beginning.

 

[Garrette]

Is maths semantic? If that is a stupid question then my excuse is that I never went to university.

Not to my thinking, but to Jabba it is, though he will deny it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Your arguments are rock solid? That's because you won't look at the big picture. You find flaws in my arguments? That's because you're stuck on semantics instead of the concept.

I was once a member of a message board which had a subforum dedicated to discussion of issues. There was a huge debate at one point about whether it should be made against the rules to quote parts of people's posts and respond to those parts individually (what was called "line-by-lining"), rather than having all the text of the post you're replying to in one quote box at the start of the post, and then replying to the whole post as one. The result of the debate was that it was impractical to make it against the rules, but that it would be frowned upon and considered rude. This was because, as you say, addressing individual points was considered not to be looking at the big picture or the concept.

The funniest thing, though, was seeing these people who didn't like to have their ideas challenged or to engage in debate try to engage in that particular debate without breaking their own rules for what they thought was acceptable. There was, for example, one poster who replied to a post of mine by quoting the whole thing and inserting bolded numbers next to each point they wanted to address and then listing their answers under the quote box. I pointed out that what they were doing was identical to cutting a post up into smaller quotes and replying to each point individually and only the formatting was different. And, in fact, that their choice of formatting wasn't as good because it meant that anybody reading the post had to keep scrolling up and down in order to read the whole thing in order and in context, rather than having the text that's being replied to immediately preceding the reply. They abandoned the thread.

I can't ever understand a mentality like that. Having your ideas challenged is a good thing. If you can defend your ideas, then that's good. If you can't, then you've learnt that you shouldn't be as sure of them as you previously were, and you should re-examine them. This is also good. And, in order to have a meaningful discussion about complex and lengthy things, you often need to take it one step at a time. Not in a Jabba-like way (as even Jabba found when we tried it), but just giving each point the space and attention it deserves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What about me? You chose me personally. I didn't suggest myself as your lab partner, you did. Am I too partisan to honestly evaluate your ideas?

If so, I find it deeply insulting that you asked to have a one-on-one conversation with me at all. I would never have agreed to such a thing had I known that you intended to disregard my comments from the beginning.

He wanted you to disagree with him. It's the peanut gallery he wants to be made up of people who are entirely without opinion on the subject. Then the whole debate proceeds like a trial, with both sides presenting their best rhetoric, and whoever is the most persuasive orator will "win" the debate by swaying the majority of the audience.

This is, of course, nonsense in many ways - the false dichotomy of the set-up, the impossibility of finding a well-educated audience who have no opinion on most subjects, the idea that scientific truth can be determined by persuasiveness rather than empirical evidence, and the whole idea of there being a "winner".

That's what Jabba finds so frustrating about this site - the fact that we don't believe that scientific truth* is determined by popular consensus, or by persuasive oratory, but instead by actual scientific evidence. Here it doesn't matter how well Jabba presents arguments about believing that there are signs of blood on the Shroud of Turin because, even if those arguments were found to be plausible, the scientific data supports the Shroud being a Medival fake. If there were a Jabba-style one-on-one debate over the subject and the side for authenticity was the best orator in the world and the person against just made fart noises, the majority people on this site would still believe that the Shroud was a Medieval forgery, because that's the conclusion that the scientific evidence supports. In Jabba's mind, under those circumstances, we should believe that the Shroud is genuine.

And that's what's wrong with the "audience" on this site - we don't start off giving each "side" equal weight, and we're not going to be swayed by empty rhetoric.

*Yes, I know. Allow me this colloquialism.

 

[abaddon]

What about me? You chose me personally. I didn't suggest myself as your lab partner, you did. Am I too partisan to honestly evaluate your ideas?

If so, I find it deeply insulting that you asked to have a one-on-one conversation with me at all. I would never have agreed to such a thing had I known that you intended to disregard my comments from the beginning.

Your opinion is not jabba's opinion. Ergo you are not neutral. Jabba will explain this at some undefined future point.

At first blush, I was really grumpy with how you went in the short lived one on one thread fiasco, but I came to see the exposure jabba got. It was not immediately obvious that the rug was pulled from under his position.

 

[Garrette]

I was once a member of a message board which had a subforum dedicated to discussion of issues. There was a huge debate at one point about whether it should be made against the rules to quote parts of people's posts and respond to those parts individually (what was called "line-by-lining"), rather than having all the text of the post you're replying to in one quote box at the start of the post, and then replying to the whole post as one. The result of the debate was that it was impractical to make it against the rules, but that it would be frowned upon and considered rude. This was because, as you say, addressing individual points was considered not to be looking at the big picture or the concept.

The funniest thing, though, was seeing these people who didn't like to have their ideas challenged or to engage in debate try to engage in that particular debate without breaking their own rules for what they thought was acceptable. There was, for example, one poster who replied to a post of mine by quoting the whole thing and inserting bolded numbers next to each point they wanted to address and then listing their answers under the quote box. I pointed out that what they were doing was identical to cutting a post up into smaller quotes and replying to each point individually and only the formatting was different. And, in fact, that their choice of formatting wasn't as good because it meant that anybody reading the post had to keep scrolling up and down in order to read the whole thing in order and in context, rather than having the text that's being replied to immediately preceding the reply. They abandoned the thread.

I can't ever understand a mentality like that. Having your ideas challenged is a good thing. If you can defend your ideas, then that's good. If you can't, then you've learnt that you shouldn't be as sure of them as you previously were, and you should re-examine them. This is also good. And, in order to have a meaningful discussion about complex and lengthy things, you often need to take it one step at a time. Not in a Jabba-like way (as even Jabba found when we tried it), but just giving each point the space and attention it deserves.

I have run across pretty much the same thing in another forum. They did not want their reasoning looked at, only their emotional resonance while pretending the reasoning as there.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Frozenwolf,
- As soon as I feel comfortable about leaving the decision to a neutral (or mixed) "jury."
- I doubt that I'll ever convince anyone here that my proposed complement IS a complement -- but, I do think that I should be able to convince the majority of a well-educated and neutral audience.
- When I feel like I've given it my best shot, I'll move on -- and hopefully, I'll not be sidetracked by something I think is more important.

I will admit I'm full of personal biases. I will admit I make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will continue to make mistakes in the future. I will admit I don't know everything there is to know about the universe, the nature of human consciousness, where we came from, or where we're going. Yes, the big questions in life are tough. However, that gives me all the more reason to believe it's very unlikely that someone has already come up with all the answers.

It's my personal inclination, yes, to disbelieve in immortality. I'm an agnostic atheist because I found religion disillusioning and oppressive. Therefore I bring these prejudices to the table. Like most people, my emotions get in the way of rational thought and color my perceptions. I have to constantly remind myself to correct my mistakes, to approach things with an open mind, and to look to where the evidence leads before drawing any conclusions. Just as some people have deeply personal reasons for wanting to believe that a part of them will outlast death, I have deeply personal reasons for not wanting to believe that.

All I'm asking is for some evidence. Show me any of the things of which you speak.

I know that taking on a forum is a daunting task. I know that it's hard to correct one's mistakes and admit where one was wrong. However, keep in mind that JREF is a very safe place to make mistakes. Nobody is going to personally attack or mock you for holding a mistaken belief. Arguments are ideas, and ideas can be changed. If you truly care about your theories and want them to hold up under real scientific scrutiny, then you should take the advice where it's given and amend them accordingly.

If immortality is a personal belief you hold, one that you find comforting, I doubt you will find anyone who objects to that. What you do with your own life is your business.

 

[Ladewig]

I disagree, though without real evidence.

I have met people in real life who behave exactly the same way, and Jabba strikes me just like them.

I have no real evidence to question your conclusion, but I do have to ask: why would such a person spend over a year arguing a point with people who he believes are incapable of being fair and neutral. What is the gain or payoff?

 

[Loss Leader]

I have no real evidence to question your conclusion, but I do have to ask: why would such a person spend over a year arguing a point with people who he believes are incapable of being fair and neutral. What is the gain or payoff?

Being told one is wrong is the payoff. Like Christ had to suffer to save mankind, being jeered at causes a percerse sense of superiority in the writer. Does anyone not have that one friend who hates everything that's popular just because other people like it? Sometimes negative attention is more gratifying than no attention whatsoever.

 

[AdMan]

I have no real evidence to question your conclusion, but I do have to ask: why would such a person spend over a year arguing a point with people who he believes are incapable of being fair and neutral. What is the gain or payoff?

I think Jabba believes there is a much wider audience that is reading his thread, which is not posting at all. This is his "educated," "neutral" audience which he is trying to convince. In his mind he is making great strides in proving he's right with this phantom audience.

For all I know, he could be right, but I suspect the phantom audience does not exist.

 

[John Jones]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

Your acceptance is of no consequence. You don't accept hard, dispassionate facts - even when presented from multiple angles from multiple people.

Arrogant pride in your decision-making processes is one thing, but your hubris approaches a break with reality.

What events in your life have given you the notion that you are less biased and more erudite than the people at JREF?

 

[Ladewig]

Being told one is wrong is the payoff. Like Christ had to suffer to save mankind, being jeered at causes a percerse sense of superiority in the writer. Does anyone not have that one friend who hates everything that's popular just because other people like it? Sometimes negative attention is more gratifying than no attention whatsoever.

I think I have encountered a bit of that in real life, but I still don't understand the need to do that on the internet. Surely there are dozens if not hundreds of message boards far more receptive to the type of theory being pitched in thi thread.

 

[Ladewig]

I think Jabba believes there is a much wider audience that is reading his thread, which is not posting at all. This is his "educated," "neutral" audience which he is trying to convince. In his mind he is making great strides in proving he's right with this phantom audience.

For all I know, he could be right, but I suspect the phantom audience does not exist.

An interesting supposition.

I do not recall our resident argumentarian ever making reference to such an audience. I guess one of the reasons I hesitate to back this theory very much is that I see it as requiring an more self-discipline than I could personally muster. ( I am committing the fallacy of incredulity). I cannot understand how one could believe there are people backing an argument that one has been unsuccessfully advancing (for a year) without appealing for these anonymous backers to come forward and agree with oneself.


In any case, while I may have the OP's motivations completely wrong, I am going to stick to my prediction that it will be impossible for anyone to change the direction or the certainty of Jabba's views on immortality.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have run across pretty much the same thing in another forum. They did not want their reasoning looked at, only their emotional resonance while pretending the reasoning as there.

Oh yes, that was the other one. You really couldn't challenge anything said about, say, religion. Because religion is personal to people and they might find it hurtful, no matter how respectful what you're saying was. You couldn't challenge any stories about people having gone to see a psychic because, by doing so, you were disrespecting the memory of their dead loved ones. There was a guy who counted himself as a paranormal researcher who was convinced that the "stone tape" theory was the correct way to explain ghosts. Me pointing out that that was something entirely made up for a film and which has no conceivable mechanism for working was wrong.

It's utterly crazy. To my mind, the people disrespecting the memory of person x's loved one is the one who's taking their money in order to pretend to deliver the message that they once had a dog called Wuffles and that they passed because of something in the chest area.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I cannot understand how one could believe there are people backing an argument that one has been unsuccessfully advancing (for a year) without appealing for these anonymous backers to come forward and agree with oneself.

He has appealed for support before, on the Shroud thread. In general, he'd go to Shroud believer sites and tell people how horrible we are and ask for people t join him. He'd get people saying that yes, we are horrible, but not supporting him. However, when he was presented with evidence or arguments he couldn't refute, he would ask them and they'd give him answers which he would dutifully parrot back to us, regardless of whether or not they'd already been addressed in the thread several times.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

It's utterly crazy. To my mind, the people disrespecting the memory of person x's loved one is the one who's taking their money in order to pretend to deliver the message that they once had a dog called Wuffles and that they passed because of something in the chest area.

This.

It used to be when I discussed with people I knew the idea of psychics and mediums and they resorted to a version of this defense, I would ask them if they minded -- knowing full well that I am not a psychic or a medium -- if I took money from their parent/spouse/child/friend so long as in return I made that person believe I was authentic and that I talked to their dead loved ones.

I never got a straight answer.